From: Peter Gluck
Ø Rossi has no competition, makes the rules, leads- so this patent was necessary and is useful. It may be useful, but is difficult to imagine Rossi as leading the pack, with this as his flagship patent. The claims are very narrow, and that is very risky. BTW here is the digital document from USPTO, instead of the scan: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1 <http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9,115,913.PN.&OS=PN/9,115,913&RS=PN/9,115,913> &Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9,115,913.PN.&OS=PN/9,115,913&RS=PN/9,115,913 The value of this disclosure absolutely depends on lithium hydride in combination with aluminum. Anything else is not protected – for instance lithium hydride in combination with magnesium lets one avoid the claims, as does lithium hydride alone. That narrowness in claims is risky - and such lack of breadth usually indicates the inventor knows that one ingredient, and only one ingredient works … which may be the case … but this narrowness is no doubt also an acknowledgement of the massive portfolio of BLP and Mills, most of which is pending. This very limited disclosure was granted quickly – as part of a strategy, but has almost no value other than to protect lithium hydride and aluminum reactions with a liquid. For another example – lithium and aluminum could be used as an IR heat source and avoid any conflict or with a TEG or Stirling. I am very surprised they limited this to a fluid. BTW a Chinese patent has already been granted for a Stirling engine LENR variant which mentions Rossi by name, which is most curious since it assumes that Rossi’s IP can be avoided but that the best implementation for it is a Stirling engine. OTOH Rossi’s Boston law firm is known to be competent, despite the obvious apparent weakness in this filing. Apparently Rossi believes that he has tried all the permutations, and only LAH works. Jones
